Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

A scientific theory must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is a theory merely for theologians or philosophers (but not for scientists).

You can believe in a non-falsifiable theory, but you should be very careful with it and rather not use it when it comes to science

The two needs synthesis, nexus for survival’s sake. This is why Kant’s failure ought to be appreciated as a final triumph. Falsifiability and Non falsifiability should be ascribed to the new differential logic which You ascribed to previously.

Albert Menne (1923-1990) founded the differential syllogistics, which is a synthesis or something like a “bridge” between the “classical” logic, which is based on the Aristotelian logic, and the “modern” logistics, which was founded by George Boole (1815-1864) and Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege (1848-1925).

What do you think about that?

It is falsifiable, find something in nature that could not have evolved by incremental steps.

Find me an animal with wheels for limbs.

Confirms my idea, but still, such synthesis must be
yet tentative, sorrily so. Understandably , Quine dismisses it.

Perhaps, Man. Some link is missing.

Find me an animal with LEDs for night vision.
Find me an animal with radio telemetry for communication.
Find me an animal with antigravity boots.
Find me an animal that uses Texaco brand gasoline for heating in the winter.
Find a color that isn’t on the color spectrum …

Ever heard of a “tailored question” or perhaps “cognitive bias”: "Everything already found is natural. Find whatever hasn’t been found otherwise it is all natural. Thus it is empirically obvious that all things come from nature."

Or perhaps things are in that category because we put them there?

Find me a square that has no corners.

The color spectrum has no known discontinuity. “Obviously blue evolved from red naturally, else it would not exist. Darwin must be right!”

No, I did not pull that out of my ass like the ones you wrote, james. The example I gave, which is a Dawkins example, is an example of irreducible complexibility, as in something that would have to pop into existence with all working parts ready. … heels.html

Forgiving for a moment that Dawkins is an idiot, the issue is that you are asking why a inorganic mechanical system isn’t also a common organic growth.

For a living creature to have wheels, the organic system must be able to grow functioning, rotating wheels from DNA cells from birth. That is a rather serious issue. How are the cells associated with the rotating wheel to receive nutrients during the growth process? It is nearly mechanically impossible. Yet you are implying that because it isn’t found in nature, it must be due to the inability to establish each small incremental stage of evolution toward that end. Whether incrementally manifested or not, it almost can’t be done.

And even if it was possible to grow mechanically functioning wheels, nature does NOT have every single possible combination of organic growth, whether they might be more efficient or not. LED lighting for night vision is easily obtained through incremental stages of natural materials and growth, yet it does not happen.

So no. I did not merely “pull them out of my ass”. Those are examples of things that would be more efficient, like wheels, and are generally MORE easily accomplished, yet nature does not grow those. You state that the issue is incrementalization yet try to use an almost impossible to grow mechanism as as a test example. It is a bad example that proves nothing because there are very many accomplishable and incrementally feasible examples that are also not found in nature. Nature does not grow every conceivable combination. You are merely picking one that wasn’t found, using the guidance of an idiot.

If you consider all man-made technical things as the extended parts of man’s body, then man’s body has almost everything you can imagine.

The missing link is the human culture, the human brain, the human intelligence, strictly speaking: the technologically applied intelligence.

Yes, but that missing link is within the general devolution of the human evolutionary trend in those above mentioned categories, it can be argued ex-post facto, regressively. The human missing link in the upward genetically surging sense in the genetic sense, is the non traceable sequence of complete genetic progression.

I can see LED vision evolving incrementally*. Wheels can’t evolve incrementally because they don’t work unless they are round and connected to an axis. In other words they would have to instantly pop into existence in a single jump as a set of two round things connected to an axis, as if designed.

As to your saying that nature doesn’t grow every conceivable combination, duh. I never implied that. I gave an example of something that if found would be most perplexing.
If you can find in nature, not necessarily wheels, but any system that could not possibly have evolved incrementally, you would have hard evidence against evolution.
Godspeed and enjoy the hunt.

*Edit: not as in the actual electronic component of course, but an organic version of it. There are tons of fluorescent creatures. They may not use their own light to see in the dark, rather to be seen, but in the course of evolution a species might figures that out, it seems straightforward.

I don’t consider them to be biological systems subject to darwinistic natural selection.

Wake up.
The issue with wheels is NOT that they can’t evolve incrementally. The issue is that they cannot GROW from DNA cells, from birth. Even if they magically sprang into existence in a generation, they would not be able to become the nest.

I hope you’re not talking about metal wheels with rubber tires.
We are obviously talking about an organic equivalent.

The materials are not the concern. Organic systems are innately fluid so as to distribute nutrients throughout. A free rotating wheel doesn’t allow for such distribution networking (blood vessels, neurons). It is an issue of the mechanics. It probably isn’t totally impossible to come up with some limited form of a wheel that can be grown, but I serious doubt that it would be efficient in use.

It is just a lousy strawman example to try to use to support evolution (typical of Dawkins).

Maybe a plant, but an animal I don’t know about that one.

The ISS is such an “absolute island”. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.


There are more than this human-made “islands”, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric “islands”:


All of the are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.

As long as all these “islands” will exist and will contradict their “ocean” nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.

Life resists entropy. Otherwise it would not be capable of self-preservation and would decay, thus die. Self-preservation means preservation of the competences during the actual life, whereas reproduction means preservation of the competences beypond the own life. There are three evolution principles: (1) variation, (2) reproduction, (3) reproduction interest. Living beings get recources out of their environment in order to reproduce their competences by the resources of the environment, thus to preserve (conserve) and renew their competences. So they strive to reproduce their competences.

According to this the meaning of life is the avoidance of the loss of the competences.

If you have the impression that you are not needed anymore, then you have the impression of the loss of your competences.

Note: “Competences” means more than"fitness", it is more like “capital”, “power”, “acceptance”, “appreceation”.